# Gobinddas & Anr v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 349
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-15
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 10655 of 2024
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gobinddas-anr-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52848
- **Pages:** 14

## Headnote

350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(a) Whether the petitioners are engaged on a
whole-time basis to work at the two police
stations or their duties require presence on a
part-time basis?
(b) How should the minimum wages be fixed for
the petitioners?

Headnotes
A. Labour Law - Minimum Wages Act,
1948: Section 2(b), 2(e) - Sweeping and
cleaning, being a scheduled employment
under the Act of 1948, there can be no
cavil
that
it
would
apply
to
the
respondents, who are a Department and
Establishment of the State Government.
(Para 20)

In the Schedule appended to the Act
of 1948, specifying the scheduled
employments,
employment
of
sweeping
and
cleaning,
excluding
activities prohibited under the Employment
of Manual Scavengers and Construction of
Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, has
been
added
by
the
Central
Government w.e.f. 03.11.2005. The
work
done
by the
petitioners is,
therefore,
part
of
the
scheduled
employment under the Act of 1948. A
perusal of Section 2(e)(ii) would show that
the Act of 1948 applies to a case of
scheduled employment under the control
of any GOI in respect of which minimum
rates of wages have been fixed under the
Act of 1948. It is nobody's case that the
respondents are in any manner exempted
or excepted from the operation of the Act
of 1948. (Para 20)

B. GO has to give way to the minimum
wages fixed by a notification issued by the
State Government under the Act of 1948,
in case of a scheduled employment. The
rates fixed by the notification under the
Act of 1948 is statutory in character and
would, therefore, prevail over the GO
dated 09.03.2019, a purely executive
order. Accepting that the petitioners are parttimers, they are clearly entitled to receive
minimum wages, fixed and revised from time to
time under the Act of 1948, and not in
accordance with the GO dated 09.03.2019.
(Para 22)
In the overall conspectus of facts while
holding that the petitioners are parttime wagers and working as such in the
Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar
Narahat, District Lalitpur, it is also held
that they are entitled to be remunerated
according
to
the
minimum
wages
notified from time to time under the Act
of 1948 and not in accordance with GO
dated 09.03.2019. (Para 24)

A mandamus is issued to the Director General of
Police, U.P., Lucknow, the Superintendent of
Police, Lalitpur, the Station House Officers of
Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar Narahat,
District
Lalitpur,
to
ensure
amongst
themselves
remuneration
to
the
petitioners in accordance with the Act of
1948, together with arrears from the date
of engagement until payment of such
arrears within a period of six weeks of the date
of receipt of this order. The current wages
shall be paid in accordance with the Act of
1948, revised from time to time in terms
of the notifications issued under the said
Act. (Para 25)

Writ petition partly allowed.

Case Law Cited:
Amarjeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2022 (4) ADJ 540 (LB) (Para 23)

List of Acts
Employment
of
Manual
Scavengers
and
Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act,
1993; Minimum Wages act, 1948.

List of Keywords
temporary, appointment, service, wages, parttime, scheduled, employment.

Appearances for Parties:
For Petitioner: Anand Kumar Pandey, Kamini
Pandey (Dubey)
For Respondent: C.S.C.

## Text

_Characters 0–39,916 of 44,986. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39916 for what follows._

11 All. Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
349
the Board to ensure that the maximum
ceiling of 25% is not breached.

It becomes relevant to note that
the provision does not employ the phrase
"not less than.." which may have then lent
some credence to the submission of learned
senior counsel that the Board was obliged
to prepare a list of candidates numbering
at least 25% of the total vacancies.

In any case as the Rule stands the
Court notes that the Board cannot be held
to bear a mandatory obligation to draw up
a list equalling at least 25% of the total
number
of
vacancies
which
were
advertised. In light of the interpretation
accorded to Rule 12(8) above and since no
other argument was urged or addressed,
the Court is of the view that the writ
petition must fail.

It
shall
accordingly
stand
dismissed."

17.
In
aforesaid
circumstances,
petitioners' petitioners have not disputed
that waiting list could be published up to
25% of seats of vacancies declared.
Therefore, an argument that there must be
some criteria to five percentage of waiting
list does not have much substance. At the
request of petitioners, no direction could be
issued to the respondents to publish a fresh
waiting list to particular extent. It is
discretion of respondents to publish waiting
list to any extent up to 25%.

18. It is well settled that a person in
waiting list has no absolute right for
consideration to get appointed as well as
that a waiting list cannot remain in
existence for unlimited period or a
particular selection process cannot remain
pending for unlimited period.

19. It would be more appropriate if
respondents have followed uniform criteria
for fixing percentage of waiting list, but
only on a ground that uniformity was not
followed. A decision itself would not
become arbitrary. Petitioners have failed to
show that any statutory provision was
violated. A direction was provided in
Rules, which was earlier upheld, therefore,
this Court cannot interfere with the
decision in Writ jurisdiction.

20. In view of above, this Court does
not find any ground to interfere with
impugned order. The judgment passed in
Gaurav Kumar and Ambrish Kumar
(supras) are also against the case of
petitioners. Number of vacancies are also
not on record. Recruitment process has
already
been
concluded.
Discretion
exercised by respondents does not suffer
with malice or is not an arbitrary decision.

21. Accordingly, all writ petition lack
merit, hence, these are dismissed.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 349
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 10655 of 2024

Gobinddas & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anand Kumar Pandey, Kamini Pandey
(Dubey)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issues for consideration
350 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(a) Whether the petitioners are engaged on a
whole-time basis to work at the two police
stations or their duties require presence on a
part-time basis?
(b) How should the minimum wages be fixed for
the petitioners?

Headnotes
A. Labour Law - Minimum Wages Act,
1948: Section 2(b), 2(e) - Sweeping and
cleaning, being a scheduled employment
under the Act of 1948, there can be no
cavil
that
it
would
apply
to
the
respondents, who are a Department and
Establishment of the State Government.
(Para 20)

In the Schedule appended to the Act
of 1948, specifying the scheduled
employments,
employment
of
sweeping
and
cleaning,
excluding
activities prohibited under the Employment
of Manual Scavengers and Construction of
Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, has
been
added
by
the
Central
Government w.e.f. 03.11.2005. The
work
done
by the
petitioners is,
therefore,
part
of
the
scheduled
employment under the Act of 1948. A
perusal of Section 2(e)(ii) would show that
the Act of 1948 applies to a case of
scheduled employment under the control
of any GOI in respect of which minimum
rates of wages have been fixed under the
Act of 1948. It is nobody's case that the
respondents are in any manner exempted
or excepted from the operation of the Act
of 1948. (Para 20)

B. GO has to give way to the minimum
wages fixed by a notification issued by the
State Government under the Act of 1948,
in case of a scheduled employment. The
rates fixed by the notification under the
Act of 1948 is statutory in character and
would, therefore, prevail over the GO
dated 09.03.2019, a purely executive
order. Accepting that the petitioners are parttimers, they are clearly entitled to receive
minimum wages, fixed and revised from time to
time under the Act of 1948, and not in
accordance with the GO dated 09.03.2019.
(Para 22)
In the overall conspectus of facts while
holding that the petitioners are parttime wagers and working as such in the
Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar
Narahat, District Lalitpur, it is also held
that they are entitled to be remunerated
according
to
the
minimum
wages
notified from time to time under the Act
of 1948 and not in accordance with GO
dated 09.03.2019. (Para 24)

A mandamus is issued to the Director General of
Police, U.P., Lucknow, the Superintendent of
Police, Lalitpur, the Station House Officers of
Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar Narahat,
District
Lalitpur,
to
ensure
amongst
themselves
remuneration
to
the
petitioners in accordance with the Act of
1948, together with arrears from the date
of engagement until payment of such
arrears within a period of six weeks of the date
of receipt of this order. The current wages
shall be paid in accordance with the Act of
1948, revised from time to time in terms
of the notifications issued under the said
Act. (Para 25)

Writ petition partly allowed.

Case Law Cited:
Amarjeet Yadav Vs. State of U.P. and others,
2022 (4) ADJ 540 (LB) (Para 23)

List of Acts
Employment
of
Manual
Scavengers
and
Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act,
1993; Minimum Wages act, 1948.

List of Keywords
temporary, appointment, service, wages, parttime, scheduled, employment.

Appearances for Parties:
For Petitioner: Anand Kumar Pandey, Kamini
Pandey (Dubey)
For Respondent: C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. The two petitioners here are
Safaikarmi / Sweepers, who say that they
are holding the post of a Safaikarmi on a
11 All. Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
351
temporary basis in the establishment of the
Uttar Pradesh Police at Lalitpur. The first
petitioner, Gobinddas, claims to be working
as a temporary hand with Police Station
Madanpur, District Lalitpur, whereas the
second petitioner, Kaushla, says that he is
similarly working with Police Station
Barrar Narahat, District Lalitpur. Both the
petitioners say that they are working as
Safaikarmi with their respective police
stations on a temporary basis. They receive
for their services an honorarium of
Rs.1200/- per month from the State
Government.

2. The petitioners claim that they are
employed as temporary hands since July,
2022, but no appointment letters have been
issued in their favour by the respondents. It
is added, however, that the Station House
Officers of the two police stations have
issued a certificate in favour of the two
petitioners, acknowledging their respective
services. It is also the petitioners' case that
they are regularly working at Police
Stations Madanpur and Barrar Narahat,
performing their duties in two shifts, viz.
7.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m. and 4.00 p.m. to 7.00
p.m. They say that there has been no
complaint against them. The officers, under
whom the petitioners served, were satisfied
with their performance.

3. The grievance of the petitioners is
that they are compensated for their services
by an honorarium of a mere Rs.1200/- per
month, which is less than what is paid to a
casual hand employed under the Mahatma
Gandhi
National
Rural
Employment
Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) by the
Government. It is pleaded that under the
MGNREGA, a worker was paid a wage of
Rs.261/- per day in the year 2023-24,
which has been raised to a sum of Rs.289/-
per day in the year 2024-25. The petitioners
are working as temporary employees,
Safaikarmi / Sweeper, in the police
establishment and are entitled to the
minimum wages, provided under the
Minimum Wages, 1948 (for short, 'the Act
of 1948'), instead of the illusory sum of
Rs.1200/- per month.

4. It is pleaded that the petitioners,
who are engaged by the U.P. Police
Establishment, perform the same functions
and duties as the other Safaikarmi /
Sweeper, in the service of the U.P.
Government and the Central Government.
It is pleaded that even in cases, where
Sweepers are engaged on an honorarium or
daily-wages, they are paid a much higher
remuneration,
approximating
to
the
minimum wages prescribed under the last
mentioned statute. Finding themselves
unfairly treated, the petitioners, along with
other employees, also Safaikarmi, moved
an application dated 09.01.2023 before the
Superintendent
of
Police,
Lalitpur,
demanding an increase in their honorarium.
They say that no action has been taken
upon the said application, a copy whereof
is on record.

5. It is also the petitioners' case that
the Superintendent of Police kept the
application dated 09.01.2023 pending with
him and extended oral assurance to the
effect that he would convey the petitioners'
grievance to the Government, but nothing
has been done. He has neither enhanced the
honorarium paid to the petitioners nor
decided the application dated 09.01.2023.
The petitioners made another application
dated 10.05.2023 to the same effect before
the Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur. It is
also the petitioners' case that finding little
success before the Superintendent of
Police,
they
approached
the
District
Magistrate, Lalitpur, the Hon'ble Member
352 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
of the Legislative Assembly, representing
the Constituency, and also the Chief
Minister. The various applications as
aforesaid are appended as Annexure No.5
to the writ petition, to which our attention
was drawn. Since, there has been no redress
for the petitioners in the matter of payment
of minimum wages for the work done by
them for the Police Establishment in their
two stations, this writ petition has been
instituted.

6. A notice of motion was issued on
07.08.2024, requiring the Superintendent of
Police to file his own affidavit. An interim
order was also passed to the effect that the
petitioners shall not be disengaged in the
meantime. The Superintendent of Police
was casual in his approach and did not file
a return on schedule. We appropriately
admonished him by our order dated
14.08.2024 and granted a week's time to
comply. A return was filed by the
Superintendent of Police, Lalitpur, where
the following stand was taken one that we
have already noticed in our order dated
27.08.2024:

"6. That it is noteworthy to
mention here that in terms of government
order dated 09.03.2019, as per written
report provided by concord Station House
In-charge, petitioners and other similarly
part-time Sweepers use to perform cleaning
work for a period approximately one hour
or less at various police station-chawkis of
District Lalitpur.

7. That all the part-time sweepers
are residents of the local police station
area and after completing their work of
sweeping, they go back to their homes.
After this, they are free to start their own
business or to take advantage of various
government schemes and participate in
them, hence they are being paid the fixed
honorarium of Rs. 1200/- for part-time
work.

8. That the petitioners are the
temporary
employees
of
UP
Police
Administrative Service and nor they have
been engaged in services by the Police
Department. The petitioners come to work
at various Police Stations and Outposts of
the District on fixed wages as Part Time
Sweeping
Labourers
and
as
per
Government
Order
dated
09.03.2019,
honorarium/wages of a sum Rs. 1200/- per
month, (increased from Rs. 600/- per
month) was paid to them for sweeping and
cleaning for approximately 01 hour daily.
True copy of government order dated
09.03.2019 is being annexed herewith and
marked
as
Annexure-P.A.-1
to
this
affidavit.

9. That it is further submitted that
the petitioners are not regular employees,
rather their part time services are taken for
approximately
01
hour,
for
which
honorarium of Rs. 1200/- per month,
determined and approved by the U.P.
Government, is sent to their respectively
accounts."

7. In substance, the stand of the
Superintendent of Police was that the
petitioners are not employees of the
Establishment, but they are hired on a part
time basis for an approximately one hour a
day to undertake the necessary sweeping
and cleaning duties in the police station. It
is for this one hour of work every day that
they are compensated by an honorarium of
Rs.1200/- a month. This stand being in
complete conflict with the petitioners' case,
where they have alleged a morning to
evening engagement, with a three hour
break in the afternoon, this Court was
confronted with a purely factual dispute
and one which was necessary to determine
in order to decide the lis between parties.
11 All. Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
353

8. Taking into account the fact that a
dispute of this kind had arisen between a
State Establishment of a very sovereign
kind, that is to say, the Police on one hand,
and some employees working for them in
the
mundane
task
of
maintaining
cleanliness in the police station premises,
we considered it expedient to determine
what was the extent and kind of duties that
the petitioners would render for the police
establishment
at
Lalitpur.
In
these
circumstances, we issued a commission to
the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Lalitpur,
ordering him to make a local inspection of
Police Stations Madanpur and Barrar
Narahat, where he was given a charter to
summon the petitioners and inquire of
them, besides others, whom he considered
necessary, including the police personnel or
members of the public and inquire into the
working hours of the petitioners at the
respective
police
stations.
The
Superintendent of Police was ordered to
extend necessary support to the learned
Civil Judge, acting as our Commissioner,
in the execution of his commission. The
dates, which were fixed by this Court, the
learned Commissioner was directed to
execute his commission after Court
hours. The parties were directed to
produce, whatever records they had in
their
possession,
relating
to
their
respective claims. The record produced
by parties was directed to be appended to
the learned Commissioner's report along
with the minutes of the Commission. This
order was made by us on the 27th of
August,
2024.
The
learned
Commissioner, who submitted his report
dated 02.09.2024, upon doing a thorough
inspection of the two police stations and
taking necessary evidence from both
sides, returned the following finding,
which is quoted in our order dated
02.09.2024, as well:

" फाई िसमायों गोववन्द दा एिंव
िौशल व स्वतिंत्र ाक्षक्षयों िे बयािों िे आधार
पर यह दसशात हो रहा है कि दोिो फाई िमी 8
 े 9 घिंटा फाई िा िाया िरते हैं परिंतु थािे पर
उपजस्थत पुसल द्वारा इ तर्थय े इिंिार
किया गया है तथा अपिे बयािों में फाई
िसमायों द्वारा मात्र 1 े 11⁄2 घिंटा ही थािे पर
 फाई िा िाया किये जािे िा िथि किया गया
है। कि ी भी थािे में फाई िसमायों िी
उपजस्थनत एविं उििे िाया अवगध े िंबिंगधत
िोई पिंजजिा िंरक्षक्षत िहीिं िी जाती है जज े
 फाई िमी कितिे बजे आते हैं एविं कितिे बजे
जाते हैं और िुल कितिे घिंटे िाम िरते हैं
इ िा निधाारण किया जा िे। दोिों थािों िा
क्षेत्रफल व उ में जस्थत निमााण िे अवलोिि
 े प्रथम दृष्टया यह प्रतीत होता है कि थािा
परर र िी ाफ- फाई एि-िेढ़ घिंटे में हो पािा
 म्भव िही है। थािा परर र एि ावाजनिि
स्थल है जहााँ पर लोगों िा आवागमि लगा
रहता है जज िारण गिंदगी होते रहिा
स्वभाववि है। प्रातः िे एि-िेढ़ घिंटे िी फाई
िे उपरािंत यह म्भव िही है कि पूरा ददि
परर र ाफ ुथरा रहे। मेरे द्वारा भी जब थािे
िा मुआयिा किया गया तो पाया गया कि थािे
में उगचत फाई व्यवस्था है जज े यह स्पष्ट
है कि थािे में लगातार फाई िा िाया होता
रहता होगा।"

9. The Commission report dated
02.09.2024,
which
carries
with
it
documents,
annexed
as
annexures,
including copies of recorded and signed
statements, was made part of record of this
354 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
writ petition. A copy of the Commission
report was directed to be provided to the
learned Standing Counsel with directions
that he would seek instructions in the
matter by 05.09.2024. On 05.09.2024, Mr.
S.C. Upadhyay, the learned Standing
Counsel, prayed for two weeks' time to file
objections to the Commission report. The
time sought was granted. Time was also
granted to the petitioners to file objections
to the Commission report, if they thought it
necessary.
A
counter
affidavit
and
objections were filed on 26.09.2024 in
the Registry, but those were not on
record. Accordingly, the matter was
adjourned to 22.10.2024. On the 22nd
October, 2024, this matter came up
before Hon'ble Mr. Justice Neeraj Tiwari,
and as the order of the day would show,
His Lordship thought that I had heard the
matter substantially and passed detailed
orders, necessitating the matter to be
placed
before
me.
His
Lordship,
accordingly, directed the matter to be
placed before the Chief Justice, since in
the meantime, the roster had changed.
This cause was then nominated to me by
an order of His Lordship, the Hon'ble the
Chief Justice dated 24th October, 2024.

10. On 12.11.2024, the parties having
exchanged affidavits, when the matter
came up before this Court, it was admitted
to hearing and directed to be posted for
hearing
on
29.11.2024.
After
three
adjournments, hearing commenced on
11.07.2025. On the 29th of July, 2025,
hearing concluded and judgment was
reserved.

11.
Heard
Ms.
Kamini
Pandey
(Dubey),
learned
Counsel
for
the
petitioners
and
Mr.
Sharad
Chandra
Upadhyay,
learned
Standing
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the State.

12. The foremost question to be
determined is whether the petitioners are
engaged on a whole-time basis to work at
the two police stations or their duties
require presence on a part-time basis.
Whereas the petitioners say that their job at
the police stations lasts 8-9 hours a day, the
respondents are steadfast on their stand that
the
petitioners
are
part-timers,
who
undertake the sweeping and sanitary work
at the police stations for a duration of an
hour and a half and no more. The learned
Commissioner, who was deputed to report
on the matter, did a survey of the premises,
ascertaining the area of the police stations,
the number of rooms and took down
statements of men from the establishment
as also witnesses, who are located in the
vicinity of the premises. These statements
are those of one Komal son of Arjan, who
has his field opposite Police Station,
Madanpur. Likewise, the statement of
Dashrath Kushwaha son of Mulayam
Kushwaha too was taken down, who has
his tea-shop at a distance of 200 meters
from Police Station, Madanpur. The
statement of one Ram Prasad son of
Bhagauni was recorded, who is a labourer
and a neighbour of the second petitioner,
Kaushla. Equally, the statements of police
personnel were also recorded by the
learned Commissioner, like that of Ajeet
Singh, S.H.O., P.S. Madanpur and Head
Constable Kaushalendra Singh, posted at
Police Station Narahat.

13. The statements show that persons,
not connected to the establishment, have
supported the petitioners' case of their
working on a whole-time basis, whereas all
members of the police establishment at
both the police stations have come forward
with
a
case
about
the
petitioners'
engagement being limited to an hour and a
half. The learned Commissioner has looked
11 All. Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
355
into the circumstances also to infer that the
petitioners would be doing their job at the
two police stations for a period of at least
8-9 hours a day. He has relied on the
cleanliness and upkeep at the station
premises to infer for the petitioners a fullday working time. In the objections to the
learned Commissioner's report submitted
on behalf of the Superintendent of Police, it
is said that he has looked into the CCTV
Footage to come to the conclusion that the
petitioners arrive at the station premises
between 6.30 - 7.00 a.m., but never looked
further at the footage to find out at what
time, they leave the campus. It is
mentioned that the CCTV Footage for the
latter hours was not available due to powercut. It is also said that cleanliness is not an
index to determine the number of hours and
that reasoning would place the findings in
the realm of conjectures. It is also said that,
just like a maid in a household, detailed to
the duties of maintaining cleanliness and
sanitation, finishes her job within a short
period of time, which lasts all the 24 hours,
so is the case with the petitioners. They
clean the entire compound of the station
within one and a half hours, which then
lasts the whole day with the staff
maintaining it.

14. This objection discounts one
remark of the learned Commissioner that
the police station is a public place, where
the number of people frequenting is large
and consistent. It is a place, which on
account of the consistent movement of the
public, would be soiled from time to time,
and, therefore, the primstate of cleanliness
noticed by the learned Commissioner, is
telltale of the constant discharge of duties
by the sanitation and sweeping staff. While
the
objections
on
behalf
of
the
Superintendent of Police carry force this
particular feature, has not been explained in
the objections. The absence of the CCTV
Footage, on whatever account, is also not
something that does much credit to the
respondents'
case.
Nevertheless,
considering the stand of parties, the report
of the Commission and evidence that the
learned Commissioner collected, it is
difficult for this Court to hold, in the
absence of some very convincing material,
that the petitioners are indeed wholetimers. After all the petitioners are men,
who are hired dehors the rules and not part
of the police establishment. They are
engaged on a contract to undertake
sweeping and sanitary work at the two
police stations. But, the question is even if
the petitioners' work on a part-time basis,
whatever be the duration of their toil, they
are entitled to be paid minimum wages as
per the relevant notification issued under
the Act of 1948. This was a plea, which the
petitioners raised in the writ petition and in
answering it, the Superintendent of Police
in his personal affidavit dated 20.08.2024,
has averred:

"10. That the petitioners are not
employees of the police department or
those sent by any other outsourcing agency.
Hence, there is no provision for paying
them minimum wages under the Minimum
Wages Act. Thus, entire action taken by the
answering
deponent,
is
strictly
in
accordance with rules and law."

15. In our opinion, the stand of the
Superintendent of Police is absolutely
flawed. The fact asserted by him in the
personal affidavit would lead to the
contrary conclusion in law than the one, he
moots. If the petitioners were employees of
the Police Department or Establishment,
their salaries or wages would be governed
by the relevant service rules. Since, they
are men, whose service and labour is hired
356 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
as outsiders, the protection of the Act of
1948 would be available to them.

16. In order to test the soundness of
this conclusion, it would be profitable to
refer to certain provisions of the Act of
1948. Section 2(b) defines appropriate
government in the following term:

"2. Interpretation.-In this Act,
unless there is anything repugnant in the
subject or context,-

(b) "appropriate Government"
means,-

(i) in relation to any scheduled
employment carried on by or under the
authority of the Central Government or a
railway administration], or in relation to a
mine, oilfield or major port, or any
corporation established by a Central Act,
the Central Government; and

(ii) in relation to any other
scheduled
employment,
the
State
Government;"

17. Likewise, the employer is defined
under Section 2(e), which reads:

2. Interpretation.- x x x x

(e) "employer" means any person
who employs, whether directly or through
another person, or whether on behalf of
himself or any other person, one or more
employees in any scheduled employment in
respect of which minimum rates of wages
have been fixed under this Act, and
includes, except in sub-section (3) of
Section 26,-

(i) in a factory where there is
carried on any scheduled employment in
respect of which minimum rates of wages
have been fixed under this Act, any person
named under clause (f) of sub-section (1) of
Section 7 of the Factories Act, 1948 (63 of
1948), as manager of the factory;

(ii) in any scheduled employment
under the control of any Government in
India in respect of which minimum rates of
wages have been fixed under this Act, the
person or authority appointed by such
Government for the supervision and control
of employees or where no person or
authority is so appointed, the head of the
department;

(iii) in any scheduled employment
under any local authority in respect of
which minimum rates of wages have been
fixed under this Act, the person appointed
by such authority for the supervision and
control of employees or where no person is
so appointed, the chief executive officer of
the local authority;

(iv) in any other case where there
is carried on any scheduled employment in
respect of which minimum rates of wages
have been fixed under this Act, any person
responsible
to
the
owner
for
the
supervision and control of the employees or
for the payment of wages;"

18. A 'scheduled employment' and an
'employee' are defined under the Act of
1948 in the following terms:

"2. Interpretation.- x x x x

(g)
"scheduled
employment"
means an employment specified in the
Schedule, or any process or branch of work
forming part of such employment;

(i) "employee" means any person
who is employed for hire or reward to do
any work, skilled or unskilled, manual or
clerical, in a scheduled employment in
respect of which minimum rates of wages
have been fixed; and includes an outworker to whom any articles or materials
are given out by another person to be made
up, cleaned, washed, altered, ornamented,
finished, repaired, adapted or otherwise
processed for sale for the purposes of the
11 All. Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
357
trade or business of that other person
where the process is to be carried out
either in the home of the out-worker or in
some other premises not being premises
under the control and management of that
other person; and also includes an
employee declared to be an employee by
the appropriate Government; but does not
include any member of the Armed Forces of
the Union."

19. Sections 3, 5, 12 and 26 of the Act
of 1948 reads:

"3. Fixing of minimum rates of
wages.-(1) The appropriate Government
shall, in the manner hereinafter provided,-

(a) fix the minimum rates of
wages payable to employees employed in
an employment specified in Part I or Part
II of the Schedule and in an employment
added to either Part by notification under
Section 27:

Provided that the appropriate
Government may, in respect of employees
employed in an employment specified in
Part II of the Schedule, instead of fixing
minimum rates of wages under this clause
for the whole State, fix such rates for a part
of the State or for any specified class or
classes of such employment in the whole
State or part thereof;

(b) review at such intervals as it
may think fit, such intervals not exceeding
five years, the minimum rates of wages so
fixed and revise the minimum rates, if
necessary:

Provided that where for any
reason the appropriate Government has not
reviewed the minimum rates of wages fixed
by it in respect of any scheduled
employment within any interval of five
years, nothing contained in this clause
shall be deemed to prevent it from
reviewing the minimum rates after the
expiry of the said period of five years and
revising them, if necessary, and until they
are so revised the minimum rates in force
immediately before the expiry of the said
period of five years shall continue in force.

(1-A) Notwithstanding anything
contained
in
sub-section
(1),
the
appropriate Government may refrain from
fixing minimum rates of wages in respect of
any Scheduled employment in which there
are in the whole State less than one
thousand employees engaged in such
employment, but if at any time the
appropriate Government comes to a finding
after such inquiry as it may make or cause
to be made in this behalf that the number of
employees in any scheduled employment in
respect of which it has refrained from
fixing minimum rates of wages has risen to
one thousand or more, it shall fix minimum
rates of wages payable to employees in
such employment as soon as may be after
such finding.

(2) The appropriate Government
may fix-

(a) a minimum rate of wages for
time work (hereinafter referred to as "a
minimum time rate");

(b) a minimum rate of wages for
piece work (hereinafter referred to as "a
minimum piece rate");

(c)
a
minimum
rate
of
remuneration to apply in the case of
employees employed on piece work for the
purpose of securing to such employees a
minimum rate of wages on a time work
basis (hereinafter referred to as "a
guaranteed time rate");

(d) a minimum rate (whether a
time rate or a piece rate) to apply in
substitution for the minimum rate which
would otherwise be applicable, in respect
of overtime work done by employees
(hereinafter referred to as "overtime rate").
358 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2-A) Where in respect of an
industrial dispute relating to the rates of
wages payable to any of the employees
employed in a scheduled employment, any
proceeding is pending before a Tribunal or
National Tribunal under the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 or before any like
authority under any other law for the time
being in force, or an award made by any
Tribunal, National Tribunal or such
authority is in operation, and a notification
fixing or revising the minimum rates of
wages
in
respect
of
the
scheduled
employment is issued during the pendency
of such proceeding or the operation of the
award, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, the minimum rates of
wages so fixed or so revised shall not apply
to those employees during the period in
which the proceeding is pending and the
award made therein is in operation or, as
the case may be, where the notification is
issued during the period of operation of an
award, during that period; and where such
proceeding or award relates to the rates of
wages payable to all the employees in the
scheduled employment, no minimum rates
of wages shall be fixed or revised in respect
of that employment during the said period.

(3) In fixing or revising minimum
rates of wages under this section,-

(a) different minimum rates of
wages may be fixed for-

(i)
different
scheduled
employments;

(ii) different classes of work in
the same scheduled employment;

(iii) adults, adolescents, children
and apprentices;

(iv) different localities;

(b) minimum rates of wages may
be fixed by any one or more of the

following wage-periods, namely:

(i) by the hour,

(ii) by the day,

(iii) by the month, or

(iv) by such other larger wageperiod as may be prescribed;

and where such rates are fixed by
the day or by the month, the manner of
calculating wages for a month or for a day,
as the case may be, may be indicated :

Provided that where any wageperiods have been fixed under Section 4 of
the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of
1936), minimum wages shall be fixed in
accordance therewith.

5. Procedure for fixing and
revising minimum wages.

-(1) In fixing minimum rates of
wages
in
respect
of
any
scheduled
employment for the first time under this Act
or in revising minimum rates of wages so
fixed, the appropriate Government shall
either-

(a) appoint as many committees
and
sub-committees
as
it
considers
necessary to hold enquiries and advise it in
respect of such fixation or revision, as the
case may be, or

(b) by notification in the Official
Gazette, publish its proposals for the
information of persons likely to be affected
thereby and specify a date, not less than
two
months
from
the
date
of
the
notification, on which the proposals will be
taken into consideration.

(2) After considering the advice
of the committee or committees appointed
under clause (a) of sub-section (1) or, as
the case may be, all representations
received by it before the date specified in
the notification under clause (b) of that
sub-section, the appropriate Government
shall, by notification in the Official
Gazette, fix, or, as the case may be, revise
the minimum rates of wages in respect of
each scheduled employment, and unless
such notification otherwise provides, it
11 All. Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
359
shall come into force on the expiry of three
months from the date of its issue:

Provided
that
where
the
appropriate Government proposes to revise
the minimum rates of wages by the mode
specified in clause (b) of sub-section (1),
the appropriate Government shall consult
the Advisory Board also.

12. Payment of minimum rates
of wages.-(1) Where in respect of any
scheduled employment a notification under
Section 5 is in force, the employer shall pay
to every employee engaged in a scheduled
employment under him wages at a rate not
less than the minimum rate of wages fixed
by such notification for that class of
employees in that employment without any
deductions except as may be authorised
within such time and subject to such
conditions as may be prescribed.

(2) Nothing contained in this
section shall affect the provisions of the
Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (4 of 1936).

26. Exemptions and exceptions.-
(1) The appropriate Government may,
subject to such conditions, if any, as it may
think fit to impose, direct that the
provisions of this Act shall not apply in
relation to the wages payable to disabled
employees.

(2) The appropriate Government
may, if for special reasons it thinks so fit,
by notification in the Official Gazette,
direct that subject to such conditions and]
for such period as it may specify the
provisions of this Act or any of them shall
not apply to all or any class of employees
employed in any scheduled employment or
to any locality where there is carried on a
scheduled employment.

(2-A)
The
appropriate
Government may, if it is of opinion that,
having regard to the terms and conditions
of service applicable to any class of
employees in a scheduled employment
generally or in a scheduled employment in
a local area or to any establishment or a
part of any establishment in a scheduled
employment, it is not necessary to fix
minimum wages in respect of such
employees of that class or in respect of
employees in such establishment or such
part of any establishment as are in receipt
of wages exceeding such limit as may be
prescribed in this behalf, direct, by
notification in the Official Gazette and
subject to such conditions, if any, as it may
think fit to impose, that the provisions of
this Act or any of them shall not apply in
relation to such employees.

(3) Nothing in this Act shall apply
to the wages payable by an employer to a
member of his family who is living with him
and is dependent on him.

Explanation.-In this sub-section a
member of the employer's family shall be
deemed to include his or her spouse or
child or parent or brother or sister.

20. In the Schedule appended to the
Act of 1948, specifying the scheduled
employments, employment of sweeping
and
cleaning,
excluding
activities
prohibited under the Employment of
Manual Scavengers and Construction of
Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, has
been added by the Central Government
w.e.f. 03.11.2005. The work done by the
petitioners is, therefore, part of the
scheduled employment under the Act of
1948. A perusal of Section 2(e)(ii) would
show that the Act of 1948 applies to a case
of scheduled employment under the control
of any Government in India in respect of
which minimum rates of wages have been
fixed under the Act of 1948. Now,
sweeping and cleaning, being a scheduled
employment under the Act of 1948, there
360 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
can be no cavil that it would apply to the
respondents, who are a Department and
Establishment of the State Government. It
is nobody's case that the respondents are in
any manner exempted or excepted from the
operation of the Act of 1948. Now,
minimum wages have been fixed by a
notification No.958-65 प्रवताि-(एम0िब्लू0)
dated 30.09.2022 issued under the Act of
1948, the material part whereof reads:

"न्यूितम मजदूरी अगधनियम 1948
िे अन्तगात 74 अिु ूगचत नियोजिों में देय
पररवतािीय महगाई भत्ता

न्यूितम मजदूरी अगधनियम, 1948
िे अन्तगात राजाज्ञा िंख्या-194/36-3-201407 (न्यू0वे0)/4 ददिािंि 28-1-2014 द्वारा 59
तथा अगध ूचिा िंख्या-850/36-03-2019-931
(न्यू0वे0)/08 ददिािंि: 30 स तम्बर 2019 द्वारा
15 अिु ूगचत नियोजिों में नियोजजत िमािारों
हेतु मजदूरी िी मूल दरों एविं पररवतािीय
महगाई भत्ते िा निधाारण किया गया है।
मजदूरी िी जो दरें मास ि आधार पर निधााररत
िी गयी है उििी दैनिि दर, मूल मजदूरी और
पररवतािीय महगाई भत्ते िे 1/26 े िम तथा
प्रति घंटे दर दैतिक दर का 1/6 से कम ि होगी।

उक्त िे अिुक्रम में निम्िािंकित 74
नियोजिों में नियोजजत िमाचाररयों िे सलये
अणखल भारतीय उपभोक्ता मूल्य ूचिािंि
आधार वर्ा (2001=100) माह जुलाई 2012 े
दद म्बर 2012 िे औ त 216 अिंिो िे ऊपर
जिवरी 2022 े जूि 2022 िे औ त अिंि 368
पर ददिािंि 1-10-2022 े 31-3-2023 ति िी
अवगध
हेतु
पररवतािीय
महिंगाई
भत्ता
निम्िसलणखत दृष्टान्त िी भााँनत गणिा िरिे
देय होगा-

दृष्टान्त-रूपये
5750/-
प्रनतमाह
मजदूरी पािे वाले अिुशल श्रेणी िे िमाचाररयों
िो औ त उपभोक्ता मूल्य ूचिािंि 366 पर
ददिािंि: 1-10-2022 े ददिािंि: 31-3-2023
ति िी अवगध हेतु पररवतािीय महिंगाई भत्ता
निम्िसलणखत होगा।
(366-216)

------X5750= रू०-3993/- प्रनतमाह

216

ववसभन्ि श्रेणी िे िमाचाररयों िो देय
प्रनतमाह मूल मजदूरी, पररवतािीय महिंगाई
भत्ता, िी मास ि एविं दैनिि मजदूरी िी दरें।

क्रमााँ
ि

श्रे
णी
प्रनतमा
ह मूल
मजदू
री
रूपये
में

ददिािंि:
1.4.2022
 े
30.9.202
2
ति
(िुल
मजदूरी
रू० में)

पररवतािी
य महिंगाई
भत्ता,
रू० में
ददिािंि:
1.10.202
2
 े
31.3.202
3 ति

ददिािंि:
1.10.202
2
 े
31.3.202
3 ति

िुल
मजदू
री
(रूपये
में)
(3+5)

दैनिि
मजदू
री
(रूपये
में)
(1/26)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
1
अिुशल
575
0
9530
3993
9743
374.7
3
2
अधािुश
ल
632
5
1048
3
4392
1071
7
412.1
9
3
िुशल
708
5
1174
3
4920
1200
5
461.7
3

(emphasis by Court)
11 All. Gobinddas & Anr. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
361

21. The minimum wages have been
revised by a notification dated 03.04.2023
and lastly on 28.03.2025. Now, the dailywage for an unskilled worker per day is
Rs.422.85. In the year 2022, when the
petitioners were engaged, it was Rs.374.73
and in the year 2023, it was Rs.388/-.
Applying the rate of hourly wages
prescribed by these notifications to be not
less than 1/6th of the daily-wage fixed, the
petitioners' hourly minimum wage in the
year 2022 would be Rs.62.45 per hour; in
the year 2023, it would be Rs.64.60 per
hour; and, in the year 2025, it would be
Rs.70.47 per hour.

22. Accepting the respondents' case
that the petitioners are part-timers, they are
clearly entitled to receive minimum
wages, fixed and revised from time to
time under the Act of 1948, and not in
accordance with the Government Order
dated
09.03.2019.
The
Government
Order dated 09.03.2019 is an executive
order of the Government, revising wages
for part-time sweepers, employed in
police stations, chowkis, from Rs.600/-
per month to Rs.1200/-.